Storm in a D cup: Rivalry between two M&S bra fitters ends in legal fight after pair accuse each other of 'stealing customers'

A fallout between two rival Marks & Spencer bra fitters has ended up in court after one accused the other of racial discrimination. Elif Archbold, 56, tried to sue the high street retailer after claiming she was bullied by fellow bra fitter Lesley Payne. A tribunal heard that Ms Payne, who was the branch's longest serving bra fitter, with 20 years' experience, was 'capable of being quite abrupt and rude, dismissive' of Mrs Archbold. The tribunal heard she would criticise her work and talk to others about her. She also asked Mrs Archbold, who is Turkish, to repeat herself multiple times, claiming not to understand her. Mrs Archbold said it felt 'like racial bullying and discrimination' as she was the only non-British person on the shop floor. Mrs Payne also appeared to take issue with Mrs Archbold's flexible working arrangement, which saw her work term time only until her daughter was 18.The two women did not speak at all for six months before the tribunal. However, a judge at a Dundee Employment Tribunal has now dismissed her case, finding that the strife was not racially motivated.Instead he said the treatment stemmed from a 'dysfunctional workplace relationship' at the branch, 'characterised by interpersonal conflict, which led to mutual distrust and misunderstandings'. Elif Archbold, 56, tried to sue the high street retailer after claiming she was bullied by fellow bra fitter Lesley Payne The tribunal heard that the lingerie department at the Stripling branch of M&S was 'not an easy place to work in' and 'it got worse progressively'The tribunal heard Mrs Archbold started working as a customer assistant for the retailer's Stirling store in 2008 and worked 'predominantly in the lingerie department' doing 'specialist bra-fitting duties'.She was given eight weeks off during the school summer holidays and one week each in February and October.Ms Payne was also a customer assistant, trained bra fitter and stock controller. She was the longest serving bra fitter in the lingerie department at the Stirling store. Both women were 'specialist retail colleagues who helped customers of [M&S] find bras that provide the correct fit, comfort, support, and style'. But the tribunal heard that the working relationships between staff within the lingerie department were 'strained' and that in the six months leading up to the tribunal Mrs Archbold and Ms Payne did not engage with each other.It was said that before that, 'Ms Payne was capable of being quite abrupt and rude, dismissive of [Mrs Archbold] and generally did not have a pleasant tone of voice when speaking to [Mrs Archbold].'The lingerie department was 'not an easy place to work in' the tribunal was told and 'it got worse progressively'. The strained working relationship was a known issue amongst the staff and team managers.In November 2023, there was a 'relatively heated, verbal confrontation' between the women when Ms Payne mistakenly believed Mrs Archbold had requested more hours.Mrs Archbold had been asked to start work at 6am, which Ms Payne took issue with, telling her 'if she wanted to work those hours she should work in [the] food' department. Mrs Archbold requested mediation so they could continue working together but it did not resolve the issues. Ms Payne was said to have told her during the mediation that she had 'no right to start at 6am' and that Marks & Spencer 'cannot provide hours to suit your family and lifestyle'.In March 2024, another dispute arose about break timings and a colleague reported Mrs Archbold for 'erupting' at Ms Payne in front of a customer.Mrs Archbold was then sent to work in the footwear department while Ms Payne returned to lingerie.Mrs Archbold said that being sent to work elsewhere left her feeling 'humiliated' and like she was being 'punished'. She said it felt like 'management were willing to accept Ms Payne's word over her word'.The tribunal then heard in March 2025, whilst rostered to work as a bra fitter in the lingerie department, Mrs Archbold assisted a customer with particular needs, carrying out a bra-fitting appointment which had been scheduled for 1pm.It later transpired that the customer had booked a bra fitting with Ms Payne, who was 'familiar with her background'.After the appointment was over Ms Payne approached Mrs Archbold and accused her of 'stealing' a customer appointment. The incident prompted Mrs Archbold to make her formal written complaint to management. Her complaint letter to the store manager accused Ms Payne of 'regular oppressive behaviour' for 'many years'. A manager from another store was appointed to investigate the claims but in June 2025 he decided no further action would be taken. He 'recommended that Ms Payne and [Mrs Archbold] complete inclusion and diversity training, and that they work in different departments going forward'.Mrs Archbold continued to feel like her relationship with management was worsening so she took M&S to an employment tribunal claiming direct race discrimination.There, Employment Judge Robert Phillips rejected the claim, explaining: 'The Tribunal was satisfied that there was an obvious and entirely non-discriminatory explanation for the disagreement.'The customer had requested an appointment with Ms Payne. [Mrs Archbold] unaware of that fact, proceeded with the bra fitting.'Ms Payne believed that a customer who had specifically asked to see her had instead been seen by another bra fitter. Whether or not Ms Payne was justified in accusing [Mrs Archbold] of 'stealing' a customer... is not the question before the Tribunal.'The relevant point is why Ms Payne acted as she did. Her reaction to [Mrs Archbold] arose from her perception of what had happened to a customer booking and not from anything connected to [Mrs Archbold's] Turkish nationality or ethnic origin.'The Tribunal found no evidence of racial language, racial stereotyping, references to nationality or ethnicity, or any other facts capable of linking Ms Payne's conduct to [Mrs Archbold's] protected characteristic.'In reaching his decision, Mr Phillips said the issue was not whether the claimant was treated unfairly, criticised, excluded, upset or treated poorly by certain line managers but whether the treatment occurred because of race. He said there was no evidence of racial language, stereotyping or assumptions linked to the claimant's Turkish nationality or ethnic origin.Mr Phillips said: 'Instead, the evidence pointed to a dysfunctional workplace relationship characterised by interpersonal conflict, which led to mutual distrust and misunderstandings. 'The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that those matters, rather than race, explain the treatment complained of. Considering the allegations both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal concludes that the claimant was not treated less favourably because she was Turkish or of Turkish ethnic origin.'